Judgment:
R :
1. : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE20H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8026 OF2015CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5830 OF2015CRL.P.8026/2015 BETWEEN1 Sri. Manjunath S/o Reddappa alias Munireddappa Aged about 29 years R/at Kotthanuru Village Nandi Hobli Chikkabalapur Taluk And District-562101.
2. Sri. Ambareesh @ Nagaraju S/o Ashwathappa Aged about 35 years R/at Andharalahalli Village Nandi Hobli Chikkabalapur Taluk And District-562101. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Rajendran S, Advocate (Absent)) AND1 The State of Karnataka Chikkaballapur Rural Police Station :
2. : Chikkaballapur Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Sri N Ramappa S/o Late Nagappa Aged about 66 years Residing at Kothanur Village Nandi Hobli Chikkaballapura Taluk and District – 562101. ... Respondents (By Sri K.S. Abhijith, HCGP for R-1; Sri K.V. Narasimhan, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.534/2015 pending on file of the I-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkaballapura for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. CRL.P.5830/2015 BETWEEN1 Smt Shwetha Ravishankar W/o Ravishankar Kandhi Aged about 34 years Residing at No.216, 3rd Floor Maruthi Nilaya, 4th Cross Bangalore – 560 002.
2. Sri. G.Y. Lakshmi Narayana S/o Yarappa Aged about 28 years :
3. : R/at No.271, 6th Cross Lakshmi Narayana Temple Road Amruthahalli Bangalore - 5600092. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Ravi B. Naik, Sr. Counsel for Smt. Vijetha R. Naik - Advocate) AND1 The State of Karnataka Chikkaballapur Rural Police Station Chikkaballapur Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Sri N Ramappa S/o Late Nagappa Aged about 66 years Residing at Kothanur Village Nandi Hobli Chikkaballapura Taluk and District – 562101. ... Respondents (By Sri K.S. Abhijith, HCGP for R-1; Sri K.V. Narasimhan, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.534/2015 pending on file of the I-Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkaballapura for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. :
4. : These Criminal Petitions coming on for Admission, through video conferencing this day, the court made the following: ORDER
Crl.P.No.8026/2015 is filed by the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 and Crl.P.No.5830/2015 is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.534/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. Since, these petitions are arising out of same set of charge sheet in C.C.No.534/2015, they are heard and disposed of by this common order.
3. Heard Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5830/2015 who is appearing through video conference and learned HCGP for respondent – State with the assistance of Sri K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 who are present physically before the Court in both these petitions. There is no representation for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.8026/2015 either through video conference or :
5. : present physically before the Court. Perused the entire materials available on record.
4. The petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 by avocation are practicing advocates. Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are their relatives. The respondent No.2 – N.Ramappa filed a complaint alleging that he had purchased 1 Acre 15 guntas of land in Sy.No.6/24 and 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.6/25 situated in the limits of Kothanur Village. Subsequent to purchasing of this landed property, he was in possession and also had constructed two houses in the aforesaid properties in question, one for his elder son Murthy and another for his son namely Nagaraj. That on 25.10.2014, the house warming ceremony was scheduled to be held. But at around 7.p.m. in the evening, one Manjunatha, S/o Reddappa @ Muniredappa, his brother- in-law Ambareesha s/o Ashwathappa, Reddappa s/o late Chickkanagappa and Advocates Shwetha Ravishankar and other three persons had trespassed into the house of Ramappa and also his land, they scolded his family members with filthy language and extended life threat :
6. : saying that if they enter into the house, they will finish them.
5. Based upon the said complaint, the case in Crime No.405/2014 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. Subsequent to the registration of the crime by the respondent – police, the IO investigated the case thoroughly and laid the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.534/2015.
6. Whereas, Sri Ravi. B.Naik, learned senior counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 has taken me through the involvement of these accused and so also, the role made by them relating to the case in Crime No.405/2014. That on 25.10.2014 at around 6.p.m., petitioner No.1 namely – Shwetha Ravishankar who is arraigned as Accused No.4 obtained the interim order in O.S.No.278/2014 filed against second respondent – Ramappa in respect of the properties depicted therein. The suit as filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for partition and separate possession. Subsequent to obtaining of the interim order in the aforesaid suit, :
7. : petitioner/accused No.4 was on her way to Bangalore on invitation of her clients to have a cup of coffee had visited their house which is adjacent to Chickballapur main road. When she was in her clients’ house, respondent No.2 – N.Ramappa knew about the interim order in the above suit and he came along with his sons and locked the door from outside and surrounded the house as where she was present in the house of her clients and abused her in filthy language. The aforesaid incident was informed by her to her husband namely – Ravishankar and also petitioner No.2/accused No.5 – Sri G.Y.Lakshmi Narayana who were alleged to be present in Bangalore. Soon after getting the said information, her husband and Accused No.5 and other colleagues tried to reach the Sub- Inspector, Circle Inspector and Police Control Room over phone call and Superintendent of Police by mode of SMS to provide protection to her. On filing of I.A.1 in O.S.No.278/2014, the interim relief restraining the second respondent not to alienate the suit schedule properties. Insofar as I.A.2 seeking restraining the respondent No.2 his agents from trespassing the plaintiff from one of the :
8. : house constructed in Sy.No.6/24. When the matter appears to be of civil in nature, that the second respondent – N.Ramappa who had hand in gloves with the respondent – Police registered the crime against the accused in Crime No.405/2014 for the aforesaid offences. Though there are no ingredients to constitute the alleged offences, but the first respondent – police has registered the crime against the accused persons just to laying of the charge sheet against the accused persons whereas the case in S.C.No.76/2015 is pending against second respondent – N.Ramappa and others for the offences under Sections 143, 342, 302 r/w 34 of IPC. But in that case, Reddappa @ Munireddappa being the father of Manjunatha alleged to have been died due to inflicting burn injuries as indicated in the PM report issued by the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. Therefore, to overcome the said case that N.Ramappa had registered the case against these petitioners alleging that they have trespassed into his land as where he has constructed the house and there was house warming ceremony scheduled on 25.10.2014. However, the matter :
9. : is of civil in nature and the same has been turned into criminal in nature. On this ground alone, learned senior counsel seeks for intervention of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the case in Crime No.405/2014.
7. The respondent No.2/complainant had hand in gloves with first respondent – police and persuaded them to register the case against these persons. The first petitioner was also roped in the alleged crime and her husband was also roped in the alleged crime for having committed the offences. Though the charge sheet has been laid by the IO by producing certain photographs of Petitioners 1 and 2 and others, nowhere it is specifically stated in the charge sheet that when these photos have been subjected to proof. But first respondent had filed charge sheet against the accused by securing the materials during the course of investigation to overcome the case registered and also pending against N.Ramappa in S.C.No.76/2015 relating to offences of committing murder of Reddappa @ Munireddappa who is none other the father of accused No.1 – Manjunath in :
10. : C.C.No.534/2015. Though the IO secured the material documents and also recorded the statement of witnesses, but the matter is of civil nature which has been turned into criminal in nature. Therefore, it requires intervention of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if not, there shall be abuse of process of law and so also, miscarriage of justice to the gravamen of accused.
8. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: In Chandran Ratnaswami Vs. K.C.Palanisamy (2013) 6 SCC740wherein it is held that as under: “The doctrine of abuse of process of court and the remedy of refusal to allow the trial to proceed is well-established and recognized doctrine both by the English courts and courts in India. The wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and :
11. : criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. In Rashmi Jain Vs. State of U.P and another (2014) 13 SCC553wherein it is held that as under: “Dispute admittedly purely civil in nature – Utterances attributed to appellant inserted in complaint with a malicious intent to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal offence – Proceedings quashed – High Court however declined to quash the proceedings on ground that all the submissions relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and at this stage, only pram facie case is to be seen High Court observed that, defence of accused cannot be considered at this stage, applicants have got right of discharge under Ss.239, 245(2) or ss.227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for said purpose and the accused persons are free to take all the :
12. : submissions in the said discharge application before trial court – That dispute between parties was purely civil in nature, was infact admitted by R-2 – Utterances attributed to appellant inserted in complaint with a malicious intent to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal offence – Held, the case squarely falls within the ambit of propositions 5 and 7 of Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC335– Order passed by High Court deserves to be set-aside – Petition filed by appellant under S.482 allowed and proceedings quashed” In Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P and another (2000) 2 SCC636wherein it is held that as under: “Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence, Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. The Supreme Court has laid certain principles on :
13. : the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Merely because the accused persons had already filed an application in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate for their discharge, it cannot be urged that the High court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the code. Though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial. In Thermax Limited and others vs. K.M.Johny and others (2011) 13 SCC412wherein it is held that as under: “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss.156(3) and 482 – Direction to police by Magistrate under S.156(3) for investigation and submission of report for alleged offences under Ss.405, 406 and 420 :
14. : r/w S.34 IPC – Sustainability – Held, for initiation of proceedings under S.156(3), complaint must disclose essential ingredients of offences alleged – If there is flavour of civil nature, same cannot be agitated in form of criminal proceedings – In instant case, essential ingredient for offence under S.420 viz., dishonest intention was absent and dispute pertained to contractual obligations between parties – consequently, prosecution initiated was wholly untenable – Besides, even police authorities had classified complaints filed by respondent 1 to be of civil nature – Moreover, documents produced indicated that appellant company had acted in terms of agreement and in bona fide manner which did not amount to breach of contract – Magistrate erred in calling for a report under S.156(3) – High Court in such circumstances ought to have proceeded under S.482 to safeguard rights of appellants – Penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 405 and 406 r/w S.34. In Prem Pal Singh and others vs. Mohan Lal reported in 1981 CrI.L.J.
1208 wherein it is held as under: “House trespass is an aggravated form of criminal trespass. The main aim or object of entry on the property of the other by the person accused of an offence of criminal trespass should be to :
15. : commit an offence or to annoy, intimidate or insult a person in possession of that property. It is not sufficient for this purpose to show merely that the likely or natural consequence of such an entry could be annoyance, intimidation or insult and that such likely consequence was known to the person entering. Such intention, aim or object of the person entering is to be gathered from the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
9. Relying on the above said judgments, learned senior counsel would contend that the above reliances are squarely applicable to the case on hand as where the case of civil in nature has turned into criminal in nature by registering the case against the petitioners in Cr.No.405/2014. Thereafter, the IO has taken up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused persons. Even at a cursory glance of the allegations made against the accused in a complaint filed by N.Ramappa and spot mahazar conducted by the IO and the photographs subjected relating to the incident said to have taken place and so also, the RTC documents and the statements of :
16. : witnesses said to have been recorded by the IO, it is patently clear that the matter is of civil in nature but turned into criminal in nature. No sort of material evidence has been secured by the IO during the course of investigation while laying of the charge sheet. Therefore, the accused Nos. 4 and 5 being the Advocates are seeking for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against them in Cr.No.405/2014.
10. Similarly, set up a theory that accused Nos.1 and 2 have also alleged to participated with the other accused at the time of committing of alleged offence as narrated in the complaint filed by N.Ramappa. On this premise, it is sought for intervention of this Court by exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, if not, there shall be miscarriage of justice and so also, abuse of process of law.
11. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State in both these petitions with the assistance of Sri S.V.Narasimhan, counsel for Respondent No.2 has taken me through the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint that on 25.10.2015, at around 6 p.m. there :
17. : was house warming ceremony scheduled, wherein Reddappa, his son-in-law, Ambareesh, Shweta Ravishankar by avocation as Advocate and other three persons had trespassed into the house of complainant and also his land, abused him in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. However, based upon the said complaint, case in Cr.No.405/2014 came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, the IO took up the case for investigation, drew the spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and so also, recorded the statement of witnesses and also took the photographs of the incident. The charge sheet consisting in all CWs.1 to CW.10. CW.2–Muniyappa, CW.3–Keshava, CW.4- Lingareddy, CW.5–Prabhakar, CW.6–Doddegowda, CW.7– Ramegowda are the eye witness to the incident. CW.8– Ramachandrappa is the mahazar witnesses. However, the case in S.C.No.76/2015 is pending for trial. Respondent No.2 – Ramappa and others have been facing up of trial in the aforesaid sessions case. But the case in C.C. No.534/2015 which is pending for trespassing the land of complainant. Therefore, the chargesheet laid by the IO :
18. : and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet has to be tested before the trial court. The prerogative powers is vested with the prosecution to subject the witnesses in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Though the materials collected by the IO shall not be dwelling in detail at this stage, but the IO has collected the material documents in order to lay the charge sheet against the accused. Therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be arrival to the conclusion at this stage that the matter is of civil in nature which has turned into criminal in nature without subjecting the witnesses to examination and cross- examination before the trial court. On this premise, learned HCGP in both these petitions submits that there are sufficient materials collected by the IO during the course of investigation and the charge sheet has been laid against the accused persons to proceed against them to face trial for respondent / complainant.
12. The learned counsel in support of their contentions has placed reliance of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another reported in 2012 (9) SCC :
19. :
460. wherein it is held that “quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.” Therefore, if the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet are sufficient to attract any of the penal provisions for the time being in force, falsification of the allegations has to be thrashed out by due procedure of law.
13. Further, in the same judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: “Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction, the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it :
20. : an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the code or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
14. It is in this context of the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions seeking for quashing of the proceedings and the counter made by learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State with the assistance of counsel for respondent No.2, N.Ramappa who filed the complaint before the first respondent police and based upon his complaint the case in Crime No.405/2014 came to be registered. During the course of the investigation, the IO recorded the statement of witnesses namely, Muniyappa, Keshava, Lingareddy, Prabhakar, Doddegowda, Ramegowda, who are the eye witnesses in the charge sheet. They have stated in their statement that on 25.10.2014 at around 7 p.m., the :
21. : accused persons had trespassed into the house of Ramappa situated in Sy.No.6/24, 6/25. The accused namely Manjunatha, Ambarisha, Reddappa, Shwetha Ravishankar and G.Y.Lakshminarayana had unlawfully assembled and trespassed into the house of Ramappa and they scolded him in a filthy language. Accused No.4 – Shwetha Ravishankar had removed her chappals and showed them to Ramappa and shouted at him in filthy language. The accused persons told N.Ramappa that if he enters into the house, he will be killed. Thus they threatened the complainant – Ramappa and created ruckus at the scene of crime and at that time, the eyewitnesses namely Keshava, Muniyappa and Lingareddy tried to pacify them and the accused persons also scolded them in a filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. These statements have been given by these eye witnesses cited in the charge sheet. However, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5830/2015 has produced several documents pertaining to the case in O.S.No.278/2014 in support of his contention that the matter is of civil in nature which :
22. : has been turned into criminal in nature. But on 25.10.2014 that these accused trespassed into the house and land of N.Ramappa and committed the offences as reflected in the complaint and also in the substance of the charge sheet laid by the IO.
15. In the instant case, the gravamen of the accused and similarly the complainant N.Ramappa is also a gravamen of the complaint who is none other than the brother of deceased Reddappa @ Munireddappa as wherein he is also facing of trial along with other accused in S.C.No.76/2015. The mother and sister of accused No.1 – Manjunath in C.C.No.534/2015 and accused No.2 – Ambareesha are the eye witnesses and these witnesses were also subjected to test on the part of the prosecution in S.C.No.76/2015 wherein N.Ramappa who is arraigned as accused and others are facing of trial in the case of death of Reddappa as wherein the Post Mortem report indicate that second and third degree burn injuries present over scalp face including lips, both upper limbs including both palms. Front, sides and back of chest and :
23. : abdomen, both lower limbs including back thighs and both soles and internal genitalia. Most of the burnt area shows carves of redness. Scalp hair and body hair singed. The cause of death is reflected as “death is due to shock as a result of burn injuries sustained.” However, the case in S.C.No.76/2015 relating to the accused persons and the case in C.C.No.534/2015 are pending for trial and moreover, the accused in both the cases are relatives to each other. But complainant – N.Ramappa is none other than the brother of Reddappa. Therefore, it is said that if the proceedings in C.C.No.534/2015 is quashed, certainly there shall be abuse of process of law relating to the case in S.C.No.76/2015 which is pending for trial in respect of the accused. Mere because the matter is of civil in nature and turned into criminal in nature, on that ground seeking for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings as contended by the learned senior counsel does not hold any substance and there is no justifiable reasons for seeking intervention to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. :
24. :
16. The inherent powers vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised judicially, judiciously, cautiously and sparingly. But in the instant case, at a cursory glance of the entire allegations made in the complaint and so also the witnesses cited in the charge sheet, it is said that at this stage, unless the entire materials before the trial Court and witnesses are subjected to test in terms of examination and cross-examination which is the domain vested with the prosecution, it cannot be dwelling into and also minutely all the materials which are secured by the investigating officer during the course of the investigation in laying the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.534/2015. When once the complaint has been filed, it is the domain vested with the investigating agency to record FIR as contemplated under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the domain is vested with the investigating agency as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. for investigation and laid the chargesheet. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there are no sufficient materials to proceed against the accused and :
25. : seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against them. If the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is exercised, certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice to the gravamen of the complainant and so also, equally impact upon the case in S.C.No.76/2015 as wherein N.Ramappa the complainant herein has been arraigned as accused who are facing trial. In terms of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there are no substances and justifiable reasons for intervention and to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons respectively. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER
Crl.P.No.8026/2015 filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and Crl.P.No.5830/2015 filed by petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 are hereby dismissed. It is made clear that whatever the observations made in this order shall not influence the mind of the trial Court :
26. : as where the accused persons are required to facing of trial in C.C.No.534/2015. But the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law on merits of the case. All the contentions are kept open for prosecution and defence. Sd/- JUDGE DKB